4 ms·

Halting the advancement that would've ordinarily happened is not "ignoring it", it's doing something to actively counter it. That "something" ends up canceling

Halting the advancement that would've ordinarily happened is not "ignoring it", it's doing something to actively counter it. That "something" ends up canceling the previous trajectory to evaluate to "nothing", but that doesn't happen through ignorance - it required a countering action. Example: You're driving your car when pedestrians appear in front of you. What does "ignoring" them constitute? Stopping the car, or running into them at the previous speed?

agons 3y ago
I'd say that the people counting leap seconds are the ones "doing something". At the point they needed to be inserted, Unix systems carry on counting seconds as units of time as they pass, "ignoring" the need to add 1 for the purposes of accounting.
- zokier 3y ago
  > At the point they needed to be inserted, Unix systems carry on counting seconds as units of time as they pass unix systems essentially will roll back clocks during leap seconds. here is handy dandy table as an example: Time tv_sec tv_usec 2015-06-30T23:59:58.9Z 1435708798 900000 2015-06-30T23:59:59.0Z 1435708799 0 2015-06-30T23:59:59.1Z 1435708799 100000 ... ... ... 2015-06-30T23:59:59.9Z 1435708799 900000 2015-06-30T23:59:60.0Z 1435708799 0 2015-06-30T23:59:60.1Z 1435708799 100000 ... ... ... 2015-06-30T23:59:60.9Z 1435708799 900000 2015-07-01T00:00:00.0Z 1435708800 0 2015-07-01T00:00:00.1Z 1435708800 100000 ... ... ... I don't know about you but I wouldn't call that "counting seconds as units of time as they pass"
paulddraper 3y ago
I suppose you can envision UNIX clock with "inertia"/Newton's second law. But when I count people passing me, I press my clicker each time to count them. Except once in a while I don't do anything, i.e. ignore them.
- catiopatio 3y ago
  Not doing anything is a decision to depart from your standard behavior. It’s not “ignoring”.
michaelt 3y ago
If a system considers 2016-12-31 23:50 UTC and 2017-01-01 00:10 UTC to be 20 minutes apart because it is ignorant of leapseconds - is that ignorance "active"?

agons 3y ago

I'd say that the people counting leap seconds are the ones "doing something". At the point they needed to be inserted, Unix systems carry on counting seconds as units of time as they pass, "ignoring" the need to add 1 for the purposes of accounting.

zokier 3y ago
> At the point they needed to be inserted, Unix systems carry on counting seconds as units of time as they pass unix systems essentially will roll back clocks during leap seconds. here is handy dandy table as an example: Time tv_sec tv_usec 2015-06-30T23:59:58.9Z 1435708798 900000 2015-06-30T23:59:59.0Z 1435708799 0 2015-06-30T23:59:59.1Z 1435708799 100000 ... ... ... 2015-06-30T23:59:59.9Z 1435708799 900000 2015-06-30T23:59:60.0Z 1435708799 0 2015-06-30T23:59:60.1Z 1435708799 100000 ... ... ... 2015-06-30T23:59:60.9Z 1435708799 900000 2015-07-01T00:00:00.0Z 1435708800 0 2015-07-01T00:00:00.1Z 1435708800 100000 ... ... ... I don't know about you but I wouldn't call that "counting seconds as units of time as they pass"

paulddraper 3y ago

I suppose you can envision UNIX clock with "inertia"/Newton's second law. But when I count people passing me, I press my clicker each time to count them. Except once in a while I don't do anything, i.e. ignore them.

catiopatio 3y ago
Not doing anything is a decision to depart from your standard behavior. It’s not “ignoring”.

michaelt 3y ago

If a system considers 2016-12-31 23:50 UTC and 2017-01-01 00:10 UTC to be 20 minutes apart because it is ignorant of leapseconds - is that ignorance "active"?